"Open-Skies" agreement is coming - Your Opinion
03-06-2007, 05:25 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: tri current
Posts: 1,485
Case in point:
Flybe a feeder airline in the UK is offering 82,000 Pounds per year for Direct Entry Q400 and EMB-195 Captains. Multiply that by 1.95 to get the U.S. Dollar figure. Any Dash 8 pilots in the USA make that kind of cash?
TP
Flybe a feeder airline in the UK is offering 82,000 Pounds per year for Direct Entry Q400 and EMB-195 Captains. Multiply that by 1.95 to get the U.S. Dollar figure. Any Dash 8 pilots in the USA make that kind of cash?
TP
03-06-2007, 05:29 AM
#62
On Reserve
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 777 - Left
Posts: 23
Hi folks,
Interesting to read your take on Open Skies. This agreement has been wrangled over now for years; just when we started to make some progress, the EU (despised in the UK) decided to butt in and effectively capitulate to US demands with little in the way of reciprocal concessions.
At least that is how it looks from our end.
I like this post, it encapsulates neatly one of the major fears of 'European' carriers. Whatever you guys think of your relative power and influence in the aviation game, your sheer size and aggression in the markets that you clearly wish to dominate, makes us very, very wary of your presence.
The US has a reputation for being ruthless and utterly self interested when it comes to its commercial interests.
Please don't take this too personally, I have American friends and a deep respect for the history that exists between our two nations, particularly the sacrifices over the last ninety years or so, but I can't help commenting on the realities that I see out there. Don't misunderstand me, we expect very hard bargaining but to be successful, the next and future accords on Air Transport must be fair and equal in the opportunities they offer to all parties.
After 9/11 US carriers have recieved massive subsidy from the US government to stay in business. Is this true? It is certainly the belief in Europe. I am not sure as to the level of support provided to other European carries to cover 9/11 specifically but I can confirm that BA received no support whatsoever other than government insurance guarantees for a short while as the insurers got nervous after the atrocity. Without them we would have been unable to fly.
Alitallia is subbed up to the eyeballs by the Italian government. Europe sees this and turns a blind eye. With the greatest of respect to our Italian neighbors, they really are not an aeronautical threat.
Air France has had a lot of government support over the last few years; debt write off and other concessions. They largely stand on their own two feet now I think.
KLM - enough said. Sold to AF. Seen as a sad move, we would like to have bought them; it would have been a marriage made in heaven for us.
All German airlines, if they do receive support it is carefully hidden.
British Airways. When we were sold form government ownership into the private sector, a massive debt ($1.7Bn) was written off to enable the carrier to get itself straight for the sale. Since those times BA has received ZERO support from any quarter. We enjoy a dominant position at Heathrow in much the same way that your majors enjoy theirs at their hubs. Slots at LHR are our major asset. We have a ruthless,cost cutting management. 'Nuff said there I think...
We could argue for ages about this subject (subsidy), our respective transport Ministers/Secretaries certainly seem to.
The reality is that BOTH the US and the EU subsidize their aviation industries. Call it defense contracts or direct government support, we both do it. Frankly without it we wouldn't see the dominant positions being achieved that we see.
I see the Airbus/Boeing relationship as very productive for us all. They compete and that drives innovation and research. It also keeps the prices down as they each fight each other for our business. I just can't see it as healthy that Boeing dominates the planet; great theory and you might feel warm fuzzy American feelings... but monopolies are very unhealthy.
Thanks for 'listening' to a long post. I am very to see that you seem as skeptical of 'Open Skies' as we are in the UK!
Regards,
Hotstart
"No government can be long secure without formidable opposition."
Benjamin Disraeli
British politician (1804 - 1881)
Interesting to read your take on Open Skies. This agreement has been wrangled over now for years; just when we started to make some progress, the EU (despised in the UK) decided to butt in and effectively capitulate to US demands with little in the way of reciprocal concessions.
At least that is how it looks from our end.
Seems like United and American should be the two US carriers that are fighting this the most for very similar reasons. The two LARGEST airlines in the world.
ryane946
ryane946
The US has a reputation for being ruthless and utterly self interested when it comes to its commercial interests.
Please don't take this too personally, I have American friends and a deep respect for the history that exists between our two nations, particularly the sacrifices over the last ninety years or so, but I can't help commenting on the realities that I see out there. Don't misunderstand me, we expect very hard bargaining but to be successful, the next and future accords on Air Transport must be fair and equal in the opportunities they offer to all parties.
Anybody know how many of these foreign carriers are supplemented by their own government? Just curious how level the playing field really is.benchvise
Alitallia is subbed up to the eyeballs by the Italian government. Europe sees this and turns a blind eye. With the greatest of respect to our Italian neighbors, they really are not an aeronautical threat.
Air France has had a lot of government support over the last few years; debt write off and other concessions. They largely stand on their own two feet now I think.
KLM - enough said. Sold to AF. Seen as a sad move, we would like to have bought them; it would have been a marriage made in heaven for us.
All German airlines, if they do receive support it is carefully hidden.
British Airways. When we were sold form government ownership into the private sector, a massive debt ($1.7Bn) was written off to enable the carrier to get itself straight for the sale. Since those times BA has received ZERO support from any quarter. We enjoy a dominant position at Heathrow in much the same way that your majors enjoy theirs at their hubs. Slots at LHR are our major asset. We have a ruthless,cost cutting management. 'Nuff said there I think...
Most flag carriers (other than U.S., of course) get some form of government subsidy. Airbus is also subsidized. That's how Euros do business.Velocipede
The reality is that BOTH the US and the EU subsidize their aviation industries. Call it defense contracts or direct government support, we both do it. Frankly without it we wouldn't see the dominant positions being achieved that we see.
I see the Airbus/Boeing relationship as very productive for us all. They compete and that drives innovation and research. It also keeps the prices down as they each fight each other for our business. I just can't see it as healthy that Boeing dominates the planet; great theory and you might feel warm fuzzy American feelings... but monopolies are very unhealthy.
Thanks for 'listening' to a long post. I am very to see that you seem as skeptical of 'Open Skies' as we are in the UK!
Regards,
Hotstart
"No government can be long secure without formidable opposition."
Benjamin Disraeli
British politician (1804 - 1881)
Last edited by Hotstart54; 03-06-2007 at 06:44 AM.
03-06-2007, 06:38 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 737NG CA
Posts: 766
Amen, bro. Thanks, fdxflyer. Of course, rational thought can't penetrate the noise barrier erected by Rush Limbaugh and the Fox "News" Channel.
03-06-2007, 06:50 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 737NG CA
Posts: 766
Hotstart,
Your points are well taken, especially the ones about American aggression in the commercial sector. After all, the whole Iraq debacle is purely about protecting the interests and infrastructure of the Halliburton Corp., the Company our Vice-President was CEO of. If it were about keeping people from killing each other and promoting democracy, why didn't we intervene in Uganda when the Hutus and Tutsis were at each other's throats?
The aggressive U.S. commercial impulse is well founded thoroughout history. In the past, they even had a name for the policy...Manifest Destiny. They used that philosophy to conquer the North American continent and attempted to expand it into the Pacific all the way to the Phillipines.
These days we don't physically take your country, we just conquer it commercially. We even do it to ourselves. Does the name WalMart ring a bell.
Your subsidy argument is perhaps valid as well. Defense contracts have propped up Companies like Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas. They are, however, limited to manufacturing entities. I guess you could argue that the CRAF program props up the airlines to a limited degree, but the income realized from that program is limited. The subsidies I'm most concerned about are not Western European. They are, rather, the Eastern bloc/Asian carriers who are most worrisome.
Anyway, good points. Thanks for the post. Its interesting to get the take from the other side of the "pond".
Your points are well taken, especially the ones about American aggression in the commercial sector. After all, the whole Iraq debacle is purely about protecting the interests and infrastructure of the Halliburton Corp., the Company our Vice-President was CEO of. If it were about keeping people from killing each other and promoting democracy, why didn't we intervene in Uganda when the Hutus and Tutsis were at each other's throats?
The aggressive U.S. commercial impulse is well founded thoroughout history. In the past, they even had a name for the policy...Manifest Destiny. They used that philosophy to conquer the North American continent and attempted to expand it into the Pacific all the way to the Phillipines.
These days we don't physically take your country, we just conquer it commercially. We even do it to ourselves. Does the name WalMart ring a bell.
Your subsidy argument is perhaps valid as well. Defense contracts have propped up Companies like Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas. They are, however, limited to manufacturing entities. I guess you could argue that the CRAF program props up the airlines to a limited degree, but the income realized from that program is limited. The subsidies I'm most concerned about are not Western European. They are, rather, the Eastern bloc/Asian carriers who are most worrisome.
Anyway, good points. Thanks for the post. Its interesting to get the take from the other side of the "pond".
03-06-2007, 07:03 AM
#67
On Reserve
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 777 - Left
Posts: 23
Yes, I think the EU ministers will pass it though there will be some fierce lobbying. It might take a long bureaucratic interval and there might be ferocious debate, but the benefits (for everyone else) probably outweigh the negatives if you look at the broader picture. They want the jobs and the cash into the EU and really don't care about the effects that will be wrought on the Airlines. For some obscure reason people in Europe like to use airlines as punch-bags. Familiar syndrome?
As for furloughs, traditionally we tend not to have furloughs within BA. We have absorbed surplus pilots either by redeploying them within the company, offering unpaid leave or by sending them home on basic pay to wait. We are under-established pilot wise at the moment and we are flying up to our 900hr limit at times. Do you guys have *Forced Draft in your agreements?
This deal could be fairly cataclysmic for us all I think....
Regards,
Hotstart
*Forced Draft = If they can catch you, they can force you to fly due to shortages. You have no recourse other than to take your rest then go. The only good news is that they pay you time and a half.
03-06-2007, 07:31 AM
#68
On Reserve
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 777 - Left
Posts: 23
It's me again, sorry to dive in again so quickly but I'm in Washington on layover and affected by the political ether.
Hi Velocipede,
I agree, that we all have not got involved (following the principal of intervention if we are to believe it is worthy) in Africa where genocide and misery seem to be the order of the day is shameful and undermines what moral high ground we might like to claim elsewhere.
Manifest Destiny and the creation of Empires. Yep' we used to have one of those once. Some of our former colonies in weak moments playfully suggest that they were the best of times though I doubt that was the case. Far better to see them with their self respect, off their knees and being plundered by their own kind.
I think you are exactly right when you define the new battlefield - trade & commerce. The Japanese and the Germans flirted with exceptional success until their national wage and living standards eroded their competitive edge. The same became true for South Korea, Taiwan and others.
Vietnam will probably go the same way, but will India and China? If you look to just about every corner store in the UK you will see Indians and Pakistanis. With the Chinese they have to be just about the Worlds greatest traders.
If we expect that they will make significant strategic commercial mistakes as they expand to rule the World, we might be hoping for too much. They, particularly China, will hold down their labour costs if they can and control living standards unless they lose it and get greedy.
India is expanding massively, I have been going there for nearly thirty years and the growth is unbelievable. Yes, you are right. The East is where the real threat to commercial dominance is coming from imho.
We had better harness the winning powers of our 'Intelligence' organisations quickly if we want to hold any edge!
I will shut up now for a while.
Regards,
Hotstart
Hotstart,
..... American aggression in the commercial sector. After all, the whole Iraq debacle is purely about protecting the interests and infrastructure of the Halliburton Corp., the Company our Vice-President was CEO of.
..... why didn't we intervene in Uganda when the Hutus and Tutsis were at each other's throats?
...Manifest Destiny.
These days we don't physically take your country, we just conquer it commercially.
.... The subsidies I'm most concerned about are not Western European. They are, rather, the Eastern bloc/Asian carriers who are most worrisome.
..... American aggression in the commercial sector. After all, the whole Iraq debacle is purely about protecting the interests and infrastructure of the Halliburton Corp., the Company our Vice-President was CEO of.
..... why didn't we intervene in Uganda when the Hutus and Tutsis were at each other's throats?
...Manifest Destiny.
These days we don't physically take your country, we just conquer it commercially.
.... The subsidies I'm most concerned about are not Western European. They are, rather, the Eastern bloc/Asian carriers who are most worrisome.
I agree, that we all have not got involved (following the principal of intervention if we are to believe it is worthy) in Africa where genocide and misery seem to be the order of the day is shameful and undermines what moral high ground we might like to claim elsewhere.
Manifest Destiny and the creation of Empires. Yep' we used to have one of those once. Some of our former colonies in weak moments playfully suggest that they were the best of times though I doubt that was the case. Far better to see them with their self respect, off their knees and being plundered by their own kind.
I think you are exactly right when you define the new battlefield - trade & commerce. The Japanese and the Germans flirted with exceptional success until their national wage and living standards eroded their competitive edge. The same became true for South Korea, Taiwan and others.
Vietnam will probably go the same way, but will India and China? If you look to just about every corner store in the UK you will see Indians and Pakistanis. With the Chinese they have to be just about the Worlds greatest traders.
If we expect that they will make significant strategic commercial mistakes as they expand to rule the World, we might be hoping for too much. They, particularly China, will hold down their labour costs if they can and control living standards unless they lose it and get greedy.
India is expanding massively, I have been going there for nearly thirty years and the growth is unbelievable. Yes, you are right. The East is where the real threat to commercial dominance is coming from imho.
We had better harness the winning powers of our 'Intelligence' organisations quickly if we want to hold any edge!
I will shut up now for a while.
Regards,
Hotstart
Last edited by Hotstart54; 03-06-2007 at 01:22 PM.
03-06-2007, 09:44 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 305
(Long post, lot to say. Sorry )
People here are correct that JMT represents a view common amongst capitalists. I would argue that he does not actually represent this view particularly well. I will also acknowledge that I will not be the best representative in oppostion; however, this is a message board, so here goes.
(I can't quote like you guys can, but if you are this deep in the thread, you have an idea of what he has said.)
1. JMT makes pure capitalism arguments about pricing and consumerism. Reference his statements about just wanting the resulting lowest fare and then he'd be happy.
Well, these arguments sound great when you are in Econ class in the 16th grade. They are fun in philosophy 101 when you read about Adam Smith. But, like all such theoretical arguments, they don't mean as much when it is your mortgage payment and kid's college in the gamble.
Furthermore, pure capitalism is about the flow of finance. It is not concerned about other things that obviously matter in the more pragmatic world. We regulate our economies to control things to the annoyance of pure capitalists like JMT. You know these little annoyances -- protection of the environment, child labor laws, right of the worker to unionize, etc. JMT surely wouldn't want to burden a capitalist venture with silly things like these until the factory was dumping the poisons in front of his waterfront home.
The facts are we all want some regulation of the economy for various reasons. We can control these through our elected officials. If all of these factors aren't tied to free trade agreements, we water down our ability to have input on things we believe are important.
Don't think so. Look at how manufacture of machine parts has moved to China. While labor law is part of the picture, so is the environmental control. The manufacturer moves to China and can start pumping poison out the back door that used to have to be recovered and disposed of properly.
People here are correct that JMT represents a view common amongst capitalists. I would argue that he does not actually represent this view particularly well. I will also acknowledge that I will not be the best representative in oppostion; however, this is a message board, so here goes.
(I can't quote like you guys can, but if you are this deep in the thread, you have an idea of what he has said.)
1. JMT makes pure capitalism arguments about pricing and consumerism. Reference his statements about just wanting the resulting lowest fare and then he'd be happy.
Well, these arguments sound great when you are in Econ class in the 16th grade. They are fun in philosophy 101 when you read about Adam Smith. But, like all such theoretical arguments, they don't mean as much when it is your mortgage payment and kid's college in the gamble.
Furthermore, pure capitalism is about the flow of finance. It is not concerned about other things that obviously matter in the more pragmatic world. We regulate our economies to control things to the annoyance of pure capitalists like JMT. You know these little annoyances -- protection of the environment, child labor laws, right of the worker to unionize, etc. JMT surely wouldn't want to burden a capitalist venture with silly things like these until the factory was dumping the poisons in front of his waterfront home.
The facts are we all want some regulation of the economy for various reasons. We can control these through our elected officials. If all of these factors aren't tied to free trade agreements, we water down our ability to have input on things we believe are important.
Don't think so. Look at how manufacture of machine parts has moved to China. While labor law is part of the picture, so is the environmental control. The manufacturer moves to China and can start pumping poison out the back door that used to have to be recovered and disposed of properly.
If all you are doing is making the point that reality very often differs from ideology, don't think for a moment I am naive enough to think otherwise.
2 JMT makes no mention of the necessity of a sound US aviation system. It is something we can agree to disagree on, but at least acknowledge that protecting an industry like aviation could be important. I believe that the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet will be used dramatically after the next big terrorist strike (hope the opportunity will not exist for me to be proven right or wrong). Are you aware of this CRAF flying JMT? What are we willing to gamble that foreign ownership and this open skies won't damage our ability to maintain this.
Something I stole from here:
But it can also be argued that foreign investment in U.S. airlines might be the best kind of terrorism deterrent. The more international capital infused in our infrastructure, the greater the stake those foreign entities have in the economic and social well being of the United States, and the more likely those investors will protect their investment.
It's also possible that a 49% stake is not a large enough incentive to attract foreign investors. I wonder if any savvy foreign investor would be willing to front the billions and billions of dollars necessary to resuscitate a dying airline that still has an uncompetitive cost structure and is losing millions of dollars a day. Any investment made in an airline that cannot compete with low-cost providers like Southwest and AirTran will soon evaporate and only prolong the slide of that airline into bankruptcy court.
It's also possible that a 49% stake is not a large enough incentive to attract foreign investors. I wonder if any savvy foreign investor would be willing to front the billions and billions of dollars necessary to resuscitate a dying airline that still has an uncompetitive cost structure and is losing millions of dollars a day. Any investment made in an airline that cannot compete with low-cost providers like Southwest and AirTran will soon evaporate and only prolong the slide of that airline into bankruptcy court.
3. JMT says China is SLOWLY becoming capitalist. OKAY. The facts are that CEO's across the United States claim that American workers don't compete effictively with the Chinese labor force in terms of Child labor law, Occupational Safety and Health, and the right to organize. I've already mentioned environmental costs. Your capitalistic argument is correct. How can we compete along those lines with your slowly developing but entirely UNFREE society.
4. JMT claims that Economic factors are nearly equal amongst all airlines in the WORLD, and doesn't see how one could have that great of an advantage over any other. JMT, I am going to assume you typed that really fast and didn't mean it quite that way. I don't believe it, and I will leave you the burden of proving that. Include some type of proof that taxation, health care costs, pensions, and varying degrees of subsidies provide equal advantage across the world. Show us also how there is an equitable trade with a company like Swiss Air and the additional access they will receive compared to American and United.
As I have stressed before: This is allowing the Europeans to do what the U.S. has been doing for years. Is it fair the way things are now?
5. White collar jobs aren't going anywhere fast. Well, I don't know enough to know how fast they are going anywhere. What I do know is that not all white collar jobs are safe, and it is interesting to see how globalisation will gobble them up. You probably are not an accountant as suggested by some, or you would acknowledge the use of the internet to send taxes overseas to India, have them prepared and sent back to be signed by a local accountant. Not a radiologist, or you would mention how some guy in {insert cheap labor location} reads your Xrays theses days. No, some jobs aren't safe no matter the location.
We see value in having Americans flying the airplanes over America. We see value in having good jobs in America. We see value in strong American airlines. There may be more than just capitalist dollar signs that are important to you, but you haven't expressed that. We hear that cheaper fares are more important than any of that. We have families and mortgages and careers. All we hear from you is that we don't fit on the econ graph your professor drew for you.
Question: If you could, would you prefer the industry go back to the days before '78 (re-regulation)?
03-07-2007, 09:47 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 423
Airline Labor Strongly Objects to "Open Skies" Agreement
After reviewing the U.S.-E.U. tentative air transport agreement reached last Friday, ALPA has serious concerns about the agreement’s potential effect on airline workers in its provisions on ownership of U.S. airlines, on franchising, and on providing foreign airliners with crew to U.S. airlines.
The Association will oppose the agreement until the U.S. Department of Transportation clarifies how the agreement will be implemented.
ALPA president, Capt. John Prater, convened a caucus at the AFL-CIO’s Winter Executive meeting, currently under way in Las Vegas, to present ALPA’s views on the tentative agreement’s potential effect on workers across the airline industry. The group issued a news statement underscoring labor’s collective opposition to the agreement.
If the agreement is approved, ALPA will be vigilant in tracking how the Department of Transportation carries out the agreement and will remain steadfast in its opposition to foreign control of U.S. airlines.
I'm sure 99% of the people know what ALPA is. For you "1%-ers," it's Air Line Pilots Association.
The Association will oppose the agreement until the U.S. Department of Transportation clarifies how the agreement will be implemented.
ALPA president, Capt. John Prater, convened a caucus at the AFL-CIO’s Winter Executive meeting, currently under way in Las Vegas, to present ALPA’s views on the tentative agreement’s potential effect on workers across the airline industry. The group issued a news statement underscoring labor’s collective opposition to the agreement.
If the agreement is approved, ALPA will be vigilant in tracking how the Department of Transportation carries out the agreement and will remain steadfast in its opposition to foreign control of U.S. airlines.
I'm sure 99% of the people know what ALPA is. For you "1%-ers," it's Air Line Pilots Association.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
